These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

237 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9127443)

  • 21. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
    Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
    Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Normalized average glandular dose in molybdenum target-rhodium filter and rhodium target-rhodium filter mammography.
    Wu X; Gingold EL; Barnes GT; Tucker DM
    Radiology; 1994 Oct; 193(1):83-9. PubMed ID: 8090926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Estimating mean glandular dose using proprietary mammography phantoms.
    Hartley LD; Cobb BJ; Hutchinson DE
    Appl Radiat Isot; 1999 Jan; 50(1):205-13. PubMed ID: 10028638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
    Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
    Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Breast dose in mammography is about 30% lower when realistic heterogeneous glandular distributions are considered.
    Hernandez AM; Seibert JA; Boone JM
    Med Phys; 2015 Nov; 42(11):6337-48. PubMed ID: 26520725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Patient investigation of average glandular dose and incident air kerma for digital mammography.
    Kawaguchi A; Matsunaga Y; Otsuka T; Suzuki S
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2014 Jan; 7(1):102-8. PubMed ID: 24234736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Normalized glandular dose coefficients for digital breast tomosynthesis systems with a homogeneous breast model.
    Sarno A; Tucciariello RM; Mettivier G; Del Sarto D; Fantacci ME; Russo P
    Phys Med Biol; 2021 Mar; 66(6):065024. PubMed ID: 33535193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Method for the evaluation of a average glandular dose in mammography.
    Okunade AA
    Med Phys; 2006 Apr; 33(4):1153-64. PubMed ID: 16696493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
    Thilander-Klang AC; Ackerholm PH; Berlin IC; Bjurstam NG; Mattsson SL; Månsson LG; von Schéele C; Thunberg SJ
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 'In vivo' average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography.
    Cavagnetto F; Taccini G; Rosasco R; Bampi R; Calabrese M; Tagliafico A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Nov; 157(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 23734057
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Average glandular dose conversion coefficients for segmented breast voxel models.
    Zankl M; Fill U; Hoeschen C; Panzer W; Regulla D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):410-4. PubMed ID: 15933148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
    Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
    Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
    Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
    Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Monte Carlo calculation of conversion coefficients for dose estimation in mammography based on a 3D detailed breast model.
    Wang W; Qiu R; Ren L; Liu H; Wu Z; Li C; Niu Y; Li J
    Med Phys; 2017 Jun; 44(6):2503-2514. PubMed ID: 28295395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. INSTITUTIONAL BREAST DOSES IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
    Lekatou A; Metaxas V; Messaris G; Antzele P; Tzavellas G; Panayiotakis G
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(2):239-251. PubMed ID: 30753684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Assessment of mean glandular dose in mammography.
    Faulkner K; Law J; Robson KJ
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Aug; 68(812):877-81. PubMed ID: 7551786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Mean glandular dose coefficients (D(g)N) for x-ray spectra used in contemporary breast imaging systems.
    Nosratieh A; Hernandez A; Shen SZ; Yaffe MJ; Seibert JA; Boone JM
    Phys Med Biol; 2015 Sep; 60(18):7179-90. PubMed ID: 26348995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Estimates of Average Glandular Dose with Auto-modes of X-ray Exposures in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
    Kamal I; Chelliah KK; Mustafa N
    Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J; 2015 May; 15(2):e292-6. PubMed ID: 26052465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Composition of mammographic phantom materials.
    Geise RA; Palchevsky A
    Radiology; 1996 Feb; 198(2):347-50. PubMed ID: 8596830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Mean glandular dose in digital mamography in women with breast implants.
    Couto LS; Freitas-Junior R; Correa RS; Peixoto JE; Almeida CD; Rodrigues DCN; Glassman LM; Soares LR
    J Radiol Prot; 2019 Apr; 39(2):498-510. PubMed ID: 30812019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.